Anthemism vs. Libertarian projects

By Boris Reitman

- 8 minutes read - 1580 words

Both Anthemist and Libertarian projects aim to establish free societies, but they pursue this goal through fundamentally different approaches. Libertarianism seeks to build society on the foundation of the Free Market. The problem with this approach is that the Free Market is not a self-sustaining phenomenon; it relies on the existence of a prior peaceful environment to function effectively. Libertarians argue that the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is sufficient to overcome this issue.

In contrast, Anthemism is grounded in the philosophical framework of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Objectivism advocates for the protection of individual rights through a government that holds a monopoly on retaliatory force. The Free Market is a derived phenomenon, not the foundation of society, and the government itself is not for sale within the market. To use an analogy, a drowning man cannot save himself by pulling on his own ears.

The ideal political system advocated by Objectivism is laissez-faire Capitalism, where the government has exactly three functions: the military, the police, and the law courts.

In summary, Anthemism aims to create a laissez-faire capitalist state, with Objectivism providing the moral justification for this political system. Objectivists argue that any political system will inevitably reflect the prevailing moral view of its members. Specifically, any system that is not based on the primacy of individual rights will devolve into collectivism and statism.

The Limits of the NAP

As mentioned, libertarians rely on the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) as a core tenet. However, the NAP is too vague to function as a foundational principle. Its ambiguity has led to contradictory interpretations, and has even been used to justify authoritarian policies or impractical pacifism. The NAP holds positive value only when understood within the context of a benevolent philosophical framework, such as Objectivism.

Even if the NAP were clarified, a crucial question remains: Who would enforce it? Libertarians often argue that the Free Market would produce the most effective enforcer. However, this view ignores that an agent with the power to enforce the NAP would inherently possess monopolistic control over force and will have the freedom to break NAP. This, in turn, would undermine the Free Market itself.

Friedrich Hayek

Libertarians often embrace the philosophy of Friedrich Hayek, who argues that central planning is inherently ineffective because no planner can fully comprehend or manage the complexities of society. According to Hayek, the human mind is too limited to grasp the full scope of reality.

However, this skepticism toward human reason undermines the very principle of individual rights. If reason is seen as inadequate, the right of individuals to make their own decisions can be dismissed for their own benefit, ultimately paving the way for a statist society where personal freedom is curtailed.

Murray Rothbard

Another key influence on libertarians is Murray Rothbard, who, observing the potential for government to commit evil, argued that all forms of government are inherently oppressive and that society should aim for complete anarchy. However, in an anarchistic society, the absence of a governing authority leads to the rise of competing power factions. These factions inevitably clash, and the resulting power struggles paves the way for a dictator backed by the strongest coalition. In this way, anarchism becomes a bloody path to tyranny and chaos.

Scarcity

Another idea prevalent in Libertarianism is the notion that scarcity defines what can be considered property. Based on this view, libertarians argue that only physical goods or real estate can be private property, while creations of the mind cannot. They claim that since intellectual or virtual products can be copied without diminishing the original, there is no harm in duplication. The original owner keeps what he had, and someone else simply gains a copy.

Objectivism, however, offers a fundamentally different perspective. It asserts that all things of value, whether physical or virtual, are products of the human mind’s creative activity. Therefore, the creator has the right to these products as private property.

Moreover, Objectivism rejects the idea that scarcity should serve as a foundation for property rights or philosophical theories. Scarcity is ultimately a temporary condition because:

  • A resource is only scarce if it is considered valuable by an individual—a concept that evolves over time (for example, what a caveman disregarded may be valuable to a modern person).

  • Humans use their ingenuity, reason, and collaboration to create more of a scarce resource or develop alternatives, thereby overcoming scarcity.

  • Historical examples of resources that were once scarce but are now abundant include: clean drinking water, bananas, electricity, spices, salt, coffee, chocolate, wheat, sugar, fabric, light, paper, soap, book printing, ice and refrigeration.

The libertarian rejection of Intellectual Property (IP) rights has led to attempts to form societies that are inherently unworkable and unsustainable.

What are Individual Rights?

What are individual rights, and where do they come from? The opening sentence of the American Declaration of Independence declares that the authors consider it self-evident that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” However, Objectivism denies the existence of a singular God, gods, or any form of mysticism, including spiritualism, karma, reincarnation, astrology, and the prediction of the future, due to the lack of evidence. So, what alternative justification does Objectivism offer for the existence of individual rights?

Ayn Rand, the creator of Objectivism, defines the concept of right as a “moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” In her essay Man’s Rights, found in the Virtue of Selfishness, page 93, she elaborates,

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

Failed Libertarian Projects

The philosophical flaws underlying libertarian attempts to establish new societies continue to undermine their efforts. Each major case will be discussed in detail in separate articles, but as a brief example, the Republic of Minerva project primarily failed because it did not prioritize establishing defensive capabilities.

In contrast, Anthemists are committed to establishing a new state without compromising Objectivist principles. They aim to build a practical foundation that aligns with the theoretical framework of their philosophy. Recognizing the importance of defense, they prioritize it as a key consideration from the very beginning of any project.

Critiques of Libertarianism by Prominent Objectivists

Ayn Rand was often asked about her opposition to Libertarianism in Q&A sessions. When asked why doesn’t she “approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?”, she responded:

Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program.

To gain a deeper understanding of the shortcomings of Libertarianism, readers can explore the insightful works of Objectivists such as Harry Binswanger, Peter Schwartz, and Ayn Rand.

Also relevant is Leonard Peikoff’s essay Fact and Value, written in response to the suggestion that Objectivists should tolerate flawed ideas from libertarian and other circles.

Author's image

About the author

Boris Reitman is the creator of the Crosspass mobile app.

crosspass.app

comments powered by Disqus